Apocrypha: Protestant Bibles are incomplete

Full story: Examiner.com 72
Do you like this Article? Protestant Bibles are incomplete. Every Judeo-Christian Bible compiled before Jerome's Latin Vulgate had the Apocrypha in it - without any "non-canon disclaimers". These ancient, complete bibles include the Septuagint , Ethiopian Orthodox, Peshitta and Dead Sea scrolls. Full Story
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Zebra

Stone Mountain, GA

#1 Mar 8, 2011
This is a great and accurate article. Protestant bibles are the worst kind.
True witness

Tulsa, OK

#2 Mar 8, 2011
Almighty God Jehovah has seen to it that his word the Bible, as we know it to be, is as it should be, the complete word of God. No matter what translation or version you use.
1 Corinthians 13:10

The apostle John was the last apostle to write the final books of the Bible. The book of Revelation was written in the year 96 A.D. The destruction of Jerusalem, or the end of the Jewish system happend in the year 70 A.D.

The complete transcribed Scriptures were guarded by the first century Christians, there were many written manuscripts that are not a part of the accepted books written by the first century Christians. The book of Thomas and others are not accepted in the original cannon of the Bible.

For a religion to claim to have the complete Bible, and yet deny God's personal name Jehovah, even seeing that it has been removed over 7000 times from the Douay Bible.

The Catholic religion has it's foundation on man made doctrine and has been exposed as corrupt and the cause of all bloodshed in Americas wars, blessings soldiers to believe they were fighting for God's nation. War is immoral and not godly.

The Catholic religion as well as Protestant religions are condemned in the book of Revelation. Revelation 18:4
Kremo

Stone Mountain, GA

#3 Mar 9, 2011
Please read Revelation 22:18-19. A true Christian can't remove or add any books to a true Judeo-Christian Bible. Protestants are especially guilty of this heretical practice.
Anya

Tacoma, WA

#4 Mar 15, 2011
2. Can You Trust the New World Translation?

The New World Translation (NWT), the JWs’ own Bible version, was created between 1950-61 in several parts, beginning with New Testament (NT). The translation was made by an "anonymous" committee, which transliterated and altered passages that were problematic for earlier JWs. Nathan Knorr, Fred Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel were later identified as the men that created the text, which is used by no other sect. Franz studied non-biblical Greek for two years, and taught himself Hebrew. The rest had no formal training in any biblical language. The text of the NWT is more of a transliteration to fit theological presumptions than it is a true translation. This can be seen in key verses that the WTS changed in order to fit its doctrines.

To undermine the divinity of Christ in John 1:1, the NWT reads, " ... the word was a god." Non-JW Greek scholars call this "a shocking mistranslation," "incorrect," "monstrous," and "evidence of abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar." Furthermore, Col. 1:15-17 has been changed to "... by means of him all [other] things were created." If the text were left as the original Greek reads, it would clearly state that Jesus created all things. However, the WTS cannot afford to say that anyone but Jehovah created all things, so it inserted the word "other" four times into the text.

The 1950, 1961, and 1970 editions of the NWT said that Jesus was to be worshipped (Heb. 1:6), but the WTS changed the NWT so that later editions would support its doctrines. The translators now decided to render the Greek word for "worship" (proskuneo) as "do obeisance" every time it is applied to Jesus, but as "worship" when modifying Jehovah. If the translators were consistent, then Jesus would be given the worship due to God in Matthew. 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, and Hebrews 1:6.

At the time of the Last Supper, there were over three dozen Aramaic words to say "this means," "represents," or "signifies," but Jesus used none of them in his statement, "This is my body." Since the WTS denies the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, they have taken the liberty to change our Lord’s words to "This means my body" in Matthew 26:26.

The NWT also translates the Greek word kurios ("Lord") as "Jehovah" dozens of times in the NT, despite the fact that the word "Jehovah" is never used by any NT author. It should also be asked why the NWT does not translate kurios as "Jehovah" in Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 12:3, Philippians 2:11, 2 Thessalonians 2:1, and Revelation 22:21. If it did translate kyrios consistently, then Jesus would be Jehovah!
Anya

Tacoma, WA

#5 Mar 15, 2011
3. Is "Jehovah" God’s Name?

In Reasoning From the Scriptures the WTS teaches that "Jehovah" is the proper pronunciation of God’s name, and so "Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved" (Rom. 10:13). They continue, "Many scholars favor the spelling ‘Yahweh,’ but it is uncertain and there is not agreement among them. On the other hand,‘Jehovah’ is the form of the name that is most readily recognized, because it has been used in English for centuries ... " (p. 195).

However, the JWs’ own Aid to Bible Understanding says, "The first recorded use of this form [Jehovah] dates from the 13th century C.E.[after Christ]. Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican order, used it in his book Pugeo Fidei of the year 1270. Hebrew scholars generally favor ‘Yahweh’ as the most likely pronunciation" (pp. 884-885).

New Testament Greek always uses the word "Lord," and never "Jehovah," even in quotes from the Old Testament (OT). Encyclopedia Judaica, Webster’s Encyclopedia, Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, Universal Jewish Encyclopedia and countless others agree that the title "Jehovah" is erroneous, grammatically impossible, and was never used by the Jews.
Anya

Tacoma, WA

#6 Mar 15, 2011

4. Do Humans Possess an Immortal Soul?

Another mistake made by JWs is their denial of the immortality of the soul. The Bible mentions the soul approximately 200 times, and it can be seen to have very different meanings according to the context of each passage. This tract will simply demonstrate that the soul is immortal according to Scripture.

Perhaps the strongest contradiction of the WTS doctrine is seen in Christ’s descent to Hades. In 1 Peter 3:19, the apostle tells his audience how Jesus "preached to the spirits in prison." If the dead were aware of nothing, then his preaching would have been futile. In the OT, the prophet Isaiah speaks of the condition of the dead, "Sheol underneath has become agitated at you in order to meet you on coming in ... all of them speak up and say.... Those seeing you will gaze even at you, saying ... " (Is. 14:9-11). These verses indicate clearly that the dead are conscious, and the NT tells the same story. To be absent from the body is not to be unconscious, but rather it enables one to be home with the Lord, according to Paul (2 Cor. 5:8, Phil. 1:23). The body is just a tent, or tabernacle that does not last (2 Cor. 5:1-4; 2 Pet. 1:13), while man cannot kill the soul (Matt. 10:28). In fact, the souls live past the death of the bodies, since John "saw ... the souls of those slaughtered ... and they cried with a loud voice, saying ... and they were told ... " (Rev. 6:9-11). Because the soul does not die with the flesh, those in heaven are able to offer our prayers to God (Rev. 5:8), and live in happiness (Rev. 14:13).
Anya

Tacoma, WA

#7 Mar 15, 2011
5. Is Hell Real or Not?

The WTS also maintains that everlasting punishment is a myth and a lie invented by Satan. Hell is merely mankind’s common grave, and is definitely not a fiery torture, according to them.

According to Scripture, if one is in hell, "he shall be tormented with fire and sulfur ... the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, and day and night they have no rest" (Rev. 14:11). This is an "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41). Jesus tells his listeners of Lazarus and the rich man, where the rich man dies, and is "existing in torment ... he sees ... calls out ...‘I am in anguish in this blazing fire’" (Luke 16:19-31). As a further illustration, Jesus stated that hell is likened to Gehenna. This "Valley of Hinnom" was located southeast of Jerusalem, and was used as a garbage dump where trash and waste were continuously burned day and night in a large fire. Jesus informs the listeners that hell is like this, "where the maggot does not die, and fire is not put out" (Mark 9:42-48). It is the place where the wicked are sent, and from this "everlasting fire" (Matt. 18:8) will come "weeping and the gnashing of teeth" (Matt. 8:12). Now if hell were "a place of rest in hope" as the WTS teaches, then it is odd that Jesus would choose such contradictory illustrations to convey this. Lastly, Revelation 20 calls hell a "pool of fire ...[where] they will be tormented day and night, forever and ever"—all who are not in the book of life. So, if one’s name is in the book of life, one enters heaven (Rev. 21:27). If it not in the book, then a literal hell awaits.
Anya

Tacoma, WA

#8 Mar 15, 2011
More stumpers for the Jehovah's Witnesses.

http://www.catholic.com/library/More_Stumpers...
QUITTNER

Toronto, Canada

#9 Mar 15, 2011
RE: Apocrypha: Protestant Bibles are incomplete
..... Many so-called "Christianities" have been invented together with their supporting literature after Jesus had been crucified.
Anya

Tacoma, WA

#10 Mar 15, 2011
The God of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

http://www.catholic.com/library/God_of_the_Je...
Dan

Saint Petersburg, FL

#11 Mar 15, 2011
QUITTNER wrote:
RE: Apocrypha: Protestant Bibles are incomplete
..... Many so-called "Christianities" have been invented together with their supporting literature after Jesus had been crucified.
Well, seeing as the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ formulate the core of Christian belief, I'd give Christians a "pass" on actually having waited until those events transpired before establishing the faith.
Anya

Tacoma, WA

#12 Mar 15, 2011
A: Mainly because their founder, Charles Taze Russell, scrambled to come up with a unique set of doctrines that would stand out from the pack. He didn't seem to care which biblical teachings he embraced and which he rejected, so long as the resulting doctrinal pastiche would be exotic. Rejecting blood transfusions on "biblical" grounds is one of the WTS' truly odd tenets. Witnesses cite two verses as bases for their position:

You shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwellings. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people (Lv 7:26-27).
For the life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off (Lv 17:14).
Besides being inconsistent by retaining this particular Old Covenant prohibition while ignoring others, such as circumcision (cf. Gn 17:2-14) and kosher dietary laws (cf. Dt 14:3-21), Witnesses misunderstand what these passages are talking about. In both Leviticus 7 and 17 the prohibition is against the eating of blood, not reception of blood through transfusions (a medical procedure which was developed only within the last century). Witnesses ignore the fact that in a single passage in Leviticus the Lord prohibits the eating of both blood and fat: "It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood" (3:17). Yet the Watchtower does not condemn the eating of fat, and no Jehovah's Witness would feel any moral compunction against eating a bag of fried pork rinds or enjoying a nice, fatty cut of prime rib. This is a good example of the Watchtower's selective "theology."
Anya

Tacoma, WA

#13 Mar 15, 2011
Oops! I left out the question.
Q:“ Why won't Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood transfusions, even when their lives are in jeopardy?
”A: Mainly because their founder, Charles Taze Russell, scrambled to come up with a unique set of doctrines that would stand out from the pack. He didn't seem to care which biblical teachings he embraced and which he rejected, so long as the resulting doctrinal pastiche would be exotic. Rejecting blood transfusions on "biblical" grounds is one of the WTS' truly odd tenets. Witnesses cite two verses as bases for their position:

You shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwellings. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people (Lv 7:26-27).
For the life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off (Lv 17:14).
Besides being inconsistent by retaining this particular Old Covenant prohibition while ignoring others, such as circumcision (cf. Gn 17:2-14) and kosher dietary laws (cf. Dt 14:3-21), Witnesses misunderstand what these passages are talking about. In both Leviticus 7 and 17 the prohibition is against the eating of blood, not reception of blood through transfusions (a medical procedure which was developed only within the last century). Witnesses ignore the fact that in a single passage in Leviticus the Lord prohibits the eating of both blood and fat: "It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood" (3:17). Yet the Watchtower does not condemn the eating of fat, and no Jehovah's Witness would feel any moral compunction against eating a bag of fried pork rinds or enjoying a nice, fatty cut of prime rib. This is a good example of the Watchtower's selective "theology."
Anya

Tacoma, WA

#14 Mar 15, 2011
Sorry everyone, I somehow got off of the JW's thread.
QUITTNER

Toronto, Canada

#15 Mar 15, 2011
2:22 pm, March 15, 2011:
RE: Apocrypha: Protestant Bibles are incomplete
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, seeing as the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ formulate the core of Christian belief, I'd give Christians a "pass" on actually having waited until those events transpired before establishing the faith.
..... Obviously Jesus' emphasis of his teachings did NOT include stories about his own crucifixion nor about his resurrection. As I keep repeating, only those are Christians who follow a Christ and his lifestyle, and who ignore the many post-Jesus invented so-called "Christianities".
Dan

Saint Petersburg, FL

#16 Mar 15, 2011
QUITTNER wrote:
2:22 pm, March 15, 2011:
RE: Apocrypha: Protestant Bibles are incomplete
<quoted text>
..... Obviously Jesus' emphasis of his teachings did NOT include stories about his own crucifixion nor about his resurrection. As I keep repeating, only those are Christians who follow a Christ and his lifestyle, and who ignore the many post-Jesus invented so-called "Christianities".
Jesus forshadowed, but did not relate explicit detail of His pending death and resurrection to His disciples prior to the event.

Only people who ignore or disregard scripture concerning His death and resurrection are Christians?
QUITTNER

Toronto, Canada

#17 Mar 15, 2011
3:15 pm, Tuesday, March 15, 2011:
RE: Apocrypha: Protestant Bibles are incomplete
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
... Only people who ignore or disregard scripture concerning His death and resurrection are Christians?
..... Did Jesus teach it? If not then, according to the definition who is a Christian, Christians are supposed to ignore it.
Was it invented after the crucifixion of Jesus? If so, then obviously Christians are supposed to ignore it.
fedupwiththemess

Ashburn, VA

#18 Mar 15, 2011
Zebra wrote:
This is a great and accurate article. Protestant bibles are the worst kind.
You mean the bible that says JESUS is LORD and not the pope??? How can that be wrong?
Dan

Saint Petersburg, FL

#19 Mar 15, 2011
QUITTNER wrote:
3:15 pm, Tuesday, March 15, 2011:
RE: Apocrypha: Protestant Bibles are incomplete
<quoted text>
..... Did Jesus teach it? If not then, according to the definition who is a Christian, Christians are supposed to ignore it.
Was it invented after the crucifixion of Jesus? If so, then obviously Christians are supposed to ignore it.
Jesus taught of His resurrection.

Any more "insight"?
QUITTNER

Toronto, Canada

#20 Mar 15, 2011
3:51 pm, Tuesday, March 15, 2011:
RE: Apocrypha: Protestant Bibles are incomplete
Dan wrote:
<quoted text> Jesus taught of His resurrection.
Any more "insight"?
..... Many people, mainly in Asia, believe that we are not our body but only live in it for many years, after which we are resurrected, yes ALL OF US, and after a while restart another life in another body; again and again! Probably this belief was also known to Jesus, and he may have taught his resurrection accordingly.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Roman Catholic Church Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 24 min RoSesz 568,700
Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 32 min david traversa 1
Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 1 hr Frijoles 209,669
St. Paul-Minneapolis Archdiocese files list of ... 1 hr woodtick57 3
Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays (Oct '07) 7 hr les 219,504
The Holy Spirit Fri TheGhostLord 2
JESUS' HUMAN SIDE (Pt. 2). Fri TheGhostLord 2
More from around the web